FE1 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
NIGHT BEFORE NOTES
Constitutional Interpretation
Literal Method
o DPP v O’Shea (Right of appeal to the Supreme Court)
o O’Byrne v Minister for Finance (judge’s pay) - “Obvious” literal interpretation is open to
entirely conflicting interpretations
Broad or purposive method
o NUR v Sullivan, AG v Paperlink, Murray v Ireland
o Difficulty in determining the “purpose” behind Constitutional provisions – license for judicial
subjectivity
Harmonious Method
o Elegant resolution of problems with literal and broad methods
o Manifestly necessary for Article 43 and Article 40.3.3 – dual reference to Property, and for
“Good Name” (Article 40.3) and Freedom of Expression (Article 40.6.iii)
o Re Article 26 and the Health Amendment Bill, Tormey v Ireland,
o But Constitution not drafted as interlocking parts.
Historical Method and Zappone
o Of dubious value to a “live” or flexible constitution (except for earlier cases)
o Re Article 26 and the OASA Amendment [1940] (Close to 1937), Curtin v Dail Eireann, Sinnott
v Minister for Education
o Zappone and determining between “fixed” Constitutional concepts and changing
Constitutional Concepts: Position of “Marriage”
 Has this definition altered given recent Civil Partnerships Act and proposed
referendum change to Article 42.5?
Natural Law
o Ryan v AG, State (Healy) v O’Donoghue, McGee (Contraception) and Norris (Homosexuality)
 Lack of consensus as to what “Natural Law” actually is
 Unease due to the link between Natural Law and GOD
 Subjective nature of Natural Law (TD v Minister for Education)
 The Death of Natural Law? – Superiority of democratic will to that of Natural law: In Re Article 26 of the Constitution and the Regulation of Information (Services
outside the State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
1
info@citycolleges.ie
The President and Article 26
The Article 26 Procedure
Problems with the Article 26 power, procedure and outcome:
o Time Limits
o Single Judgement Rule
o How much of the Bill to refer?
o Presumption of Constitutionality
o Mootness
o Gold-plated immunity
Re Article 26 and Part V of the Planning Bill, Re Article 26 and the Equal Status Bill, Re Article 26 and
the Health Amendment Bill
The Attorney General
Original role in criminal prosecutions, now the DPP
Independence from the Executive/Provisions for independent removal and resignation/Article 30
Quasi-judicial role? Wheeler v Culligan and Extradition
NB “Relator” Actions, Locus Standi and the role of the AG as guardian of constitutional rights.
The Oireachtas
Article 16 and the Regulation of Elections
o Election facilities
 Draper v AG
 Redmond v AG
 King v AG
o Proportional Representation and the Census
 O’Donovan
 Re Article 26 and the Electoral (Amendment) Bill
 Murphy & McGrath
o Justiciability
 Doherty v South Dublin County Council
 Non-justiciable matters might include:
Foreign Affairs (but see Dubsky)
Socio-economic matters (but see Cronin, O’Carolan, Sinnott)
Internal Oireachtas matters (but see Callely v Moylan)
Justiciability and the internal workings of the Oireachtas
o Internal workings of the Oireachtas and Oireachtas members
 O’Malley v Ceann Comhairle
 Callely v Moylan ?
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
2
info@citycolleges.ie
o
o
Internal workings/investigations and non-members of the Oireachtas
 Maguire v Ardagh (The “Abbeylara” case and the good name of Gardai)
 Curtin v Dail Eireann
 Callely v Moylan?
Include/consider here the Right to a Good Name and Fair Procedures
 Maguire v Ardagh (The “Abbeylara” case and the good name of Gardai)
 Curtin v Dail Eireann
 Callely v Moylan?
Privilege
o Article 15.10, 15.12, 15.13
o Ahern v Mahon
o Howlin v Morris - not “self-executing”
o Murphy v Dublin Corporation
The Courts
o



Justice administered in Public
o Originally only in camera if legislation allowed, and in the interests of justice
 Roe v BTSB
 Re R
o Irish Times v Ireland and “Inherent jurisdiction”
o NB, Consider here “Adverse Pre-Trial Publicity” and Article 38.1 below
o Post Irish Times case law narrowly circumscribing extent of that discretion
 Ansbacher (Cayman)
 Doe v Revenue Commissioners
Independence and Removal of the Judiciary
o See also “Justiciable Controversy” and Separation of Powers below
o Immunity from Suit
o Removal and Curtin v Dail Eireann
Minor and Non-Minor Offences
Melling v O’Mathghamna
Severity of the Penalty
Moral quality of the Act
State of Opinion and Law in 1937
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
3
info@citycolleges.ie
The Separation of Powers:
1. Non-Delegation Doctrine
(Executive acting as the Legislature)
Issue of “Orders/Statutory Instruments/Articles” being created by the Minister - is the Minister
WRITING Laws, or simply following the “Principles and Policies” of existing Legislation?
Watch for manifestation of the Executive – not necessarily a “Minister” - often an Executive
emanation/body (“Agri-Efficiency Ireland”/”Regulation of Food Vendors”)
Cityview Press v AnCO
McDaid v Sheehy
Laurentiu v Minister for Justice
Leontjava & Chang v DPP
Cooke v Walsh
Harvey v Minister for Social Welfare
John Grace Fried Chicken
2. Socio-Economic Rights
(Judiciary acting as the Legislature or Executive)
a. Is the claim being made on a Constitutional, or merely Statutory basis?
b. Is there a Constitutional basis for the right being sought? I.e., is it an established express
constitutional right (like Article 42 – the right to primary education) or unenumerated right
(e.g. legal aid as identified in State (Healy) v O’Donoghue [1976])
c. If the right is not express, or has not yet been ‘recognised/discovered’ as an unenumerated
right, can the litigant seek to have the right recognised now
d. If the right is recognised (express or unenumerated) is there sufficient specificity either in
legislation or in government policy to provide for the realisation of that right? Or is the
litigant instead asking the Court to ‘legislate’ which would be a breach of the SOP?
e. Is the litigant seeking a mandatory order (mandamus – seeking the Court to ‘force’ one of
the other two branches to act in a certain way? Or is the Court instead merely declaring a
breach of that socio-economic right?
Jurisprudence on Socio-Economic Rights
O’Reilly v Limerick Corporation: “Distribute Justice” and “Commutative Justice”
Sinnott v Minister for Education
TD v Minister for Education
More recent jurisprudence
O’Donohue v Legal Aid Board
Cronin v Minister for Education and Science
O’Carolan (A minor) v Minister for Education
Questions on “Article 45” allow discussion of Socio-Economic Rights
Article 45 contains socio-economic rights. Article 45 is non-justiciable. Therefore, on one view,
Article 45 suggests that all Socio-Economic rights are non-justiciable.
Justiciability and Deference distinguished
Madigan v AG
Murphy v AG
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
4
info@citycolleges.ie
3.
Justiciable Controversy
(Legislature acting as the Judiciary) – Also relevant for the Independence of the Judiciary
Are the Courts ACTUALLY being stopped from deciding an EXISTING issue, or is the Legislature
simply providing clarity in the law?
Buckley v AG
State (Divito) v Arklow
State (O’Rourke) v Kelly
Sloan v Special Criminal Court
Maher v AG
Sentencing and Detention
Deaton v AG
State (O) v O’Brien
DPP v Aylmer and DPP v Cahill
DPP v Finn
4.
Non-Judicial Bodies acting Judicially
(Executive acting as the Judiciary)
If a NON-Court Body – e.g. A Disciplinary Committee – dismisses or disciplines someone, are they
acting TOO Judicially?
McDonald v Bord na gCon
A dispute or controversy as to the existence of a legal right or violation of the
law
Determination or assignation of Rights or imposition of duties or infliction of a
penalty
The Final determination of these rights, subject to certain appeals
Enforcement of these rights/liabilities or the imposition of penalties by Court
or executive, (having recourse then to the Court)
The making of an Order of the Court which, as a matter of history, has the
characteristics of Courts in this Country
Re The Solicitors Act 1954
M v The Medical Council
K v An Bord Altranais
Keady v Commissioner of an Garda Siochana
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
5
info@citycolleges.ie
Locus Standi, Mootness, The Presumption of Constitutionality and Justiciability
Locus Standi
Often asked indirectly: A question seems to be, for example, about “Father’s Rights”, but you are
asked to advise an “association” rather than a Limited Company. (Question 5, October 2010
“AIDE – The Association for the Improvement of Dad’s Entitlements”). An association is not a
legal person, and would not technically have locus standi. Might the rules be relaxed?
Also watch for Right of Access to the Courts
o Tuohy v Courtenay, Macauley v Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, McBrearty v Morris,
Stevenson v Landy
Cahill v Sutton
o Avoiding jus tertii
o Avoiding “ litigious person or the crank, the obstructionist, the meddlesome, the
perverse or the officious man of straw”/Politically motivated litigation
o Avoiding a vacuum in legislation





Norris v AG
Lancefort v An Bord Pleanala
Construction Industry Federation
Irish Penal Reform Trust
SPUC v Coogan
Mootness
Has not been asked directly, but certainly arises as one of the key problems with Article 26
References: The Court is considering Moot issues only.
o
It must be necessary for the decision of the Court to decide upon the issue
 White v Dublin City Council
 McDaid v Sheehy
 Condon v Minister for Labour
 Desmond v Glackin
Presumption of Constitutionality
Often asked as an essay question in and of itself. Be aware of the Presumption as an “obstacle”
to the Constitutional Law litigant. With that in mind, include other “obstacle” issues which arise:
o Deference towards certain legislation (Tax, Social issues, Security)
o Justiciability
o Locus Standi
o Mootness.
o Pigs Marketing Board v Donnelly
o State (Sheerin) v Kennedy - only available to post-1937 Statutes
o McDonald v Bord na gCon - double construction rule
o East Donegal Co-Operative v AG – applies to discretionary and executive powers
Justiciability
This can arise as part of a Good Name/Fair Procedures question: Can the Courts even examine
an investigation of the Oireachtas which affects one’s good name, if that investigation is nonjusticiable?
o Separation of Powers issue: Unique constitutional province of Legislature/Executive
 Separate to mere deference
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
6
info@citycolleges.ie
o
 Madigan v AG – Taxation
 Re Article 26 and the OASA (Amendment) Bill 1940 – Security
 Ryan v AG and Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare – Socio-economic matters
A la carte invocation:
 Horgan v Ireland
 Dubsky v Ireland
 O’Malley v Ceann Comhairle
 Maguire v Ardagh
 Curtin v Dail Eireann
 Callely v Moylan
Article 38.1/Trial in Due Course of Law
One of the few ‘self-contained’ and identifiable questions: Look for: “Brendan is arrested”, “Brendan
is accused” type openings. Many sub-issues to Article 38.1, but key examinable issues are:
o Delay
o Publicity (also Article 34 and “The Courts” above)
o Missing Evidence
o Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence (The Exclusionary Rule)
o Right to Silence AND Right to Representation/Lawyer (Access to a lawyer is a constitutional
right, but also ‘cures’ State dilutions of your right to silence. So, “adverse inferences” from
silence are allowable if Lawyer present)
Real risk of an unfair trial
o Right to a trial with due expeditiousness/Delay
 Sex Abuse Cases
 H v DPP – Prejudice and risk only: Blame for delay irrelevant
 Non Sex Abuse Cases
 McFarlane v DPP
Inordinate and inexcusable delay
Presumptive prejudice
Balancing exercise
Actual Prejudice
o
Adverse Pre-Trial Publicity
 Z v DPP
 D v DPP
 DPP v Haugh
 Magee v O’Dea
 Confidence of Court in Trial Judge Direction
 NB: Issue of Public Administration of Justice also (Courts above)
o
Duty to seek out and preserve Evidence
 Duty is only as far as is reasonable
 Duty is both to seek out and preserve
 “Eve of Trial”/Last minute defence applications viewed poorly
 NEXUS between “missing evidence” and remaining evidence must be made
 Scully
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
7
info@citycolleges.ie




Braddish
Dunne
McFarlane
Savage
o
Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
 “Deliberate and Conscious Breach”
 AG v O’Brien
 Madden
 Kenny
 “Extraordinary Excusing Circumstances”
 DPP v Shaw (compared to DPP v Curtin)
 DPP v Cash (Evidence only for arrest)
o
Right to Silence and Right to Lawyer
 Right to silence is a weak right – DPP v Rock/Heaney
 Allowable dilution to Criminalise silence and to allow “Adverse Inferences”
 If Legislation allows – DPP v Finnerty
 And if “safeguards” in place - Safeguards ordinarily include right to lawyer
 Lavery v MIC Carrickmacross
 Murray v UK
 DPP v Finnegan
 DPP v Gormley
 DPP v O’Brien and “Colourable Manoevres”
o
Right to Liberty
 O’Callaghan v Ireland [1994] – Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977
 Not an unconstitutional infringement of the Right to Liberty
 Ryan v AG [1965] affirmed
 DPP (Stratford) v Fagan - A common law power to stop and “check” motor vehicle
DOES exist, and the threshold for such examination is very low.
 DPP v Farrell [2008] – Right to be INFORMED of the reason for the deprivation of
liberty under Section 23 MDA 1977, as well as REASONABLE BASIS needed for said
search)
 Bail
• AG v Callaghan [1966]
• Bail to be granted unless Accused person:
• Might Abscond/Evade Justice
• Might interfere with the administration of Justice
• Bail Act 1997 following Referendum in 1996
Article 40.4.6
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
8
info@citycolleges.ie
General Principles of Fundamental Rights
Application to Non-Citizens
State (Nicholau) v An Bord Uchtala/ State (McFadden) v Governor of Mountjoy
Capacity to “Waive” Constitutional Rights
o
o
o
Right to Adopt State (Nicholau) v An Bord Uchtala, G v An Bord Uchtala - Simply an
authority/origin for the need to recognise waiver of rights.
Right to Medical Treatment
Fleming v Ireland: Right to Die/Life/Personal Autonomy


Re a Ward of Court, Fitzpatrick and Ryan v FK, Re T
Competent Adult – With Full Autonomy – Was Allowed In Law To Refuse
Treatment
 Information Given Must Be Accurate
 The Treatment Proposed Must Be Appropriate.
 The Refusal Must Be Both Voluntary And With Capacity
Limits on Constitutional Rights:
o Limits in the express wording (“The Right to Freedom of Expression, subject to public order
and morality”, the Right to Property, subject to Social Justice and the Common Good, the
Right to Equality, subject to “Human Persons”, with due recognition of differences of Physical
and Moral capacity and moral function”)
o
Limits by harmonious/balancing of rights
 Murray v Ireland
 No Hierarchy of Rights – DPP v Shaw
o
Limits by regulation of Law/Legislation Doctrine of Proportionality
 Be very careful invoking/applying Doctrine of Proportionality. Read academic
articles/lectures first.
 Heaney v Ireland, Tuohy v Courtney, Cox v Ireland.
 Different Proportionality Tests applied depending upon which Constitutional right is
at stake
 CF Application of the “Human Personality” doctrine, mirrors approach of Courts to
doctrine of Proportionality
 Damache v Ireland, Fleming v Ireland - Heaney test endorsed for inviolability of the
dwelling and “right to die’ respectively.
Unenumerated Rights
Often an essay question. Three-pronged approach to the issue is advisable, as follows:
(1) Origin of Unenumerated Rights
(2) Scope and value of unenumerated Rights
(3) Problems with Unenumerated Rights
 TD v Minister for Education – Keane, CJ
“Christian and Democratic” basis for unenumerated rights?
Socio-Economic nature of unenumerated rights?
Courts or Oireachtas should ‘discover’ unenumerated rights
Constitutional Review Group 1996 – advises expressly enumerating and
finalising unenumerated rights like ECHR
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
9
info@citycolleges.ie
Personal Rights:
Right to Good Name and Fair Procedures
Connection between the Two rights – Questions on “Right to Good name as an Engine that drives
right to fair procedures”
Know Callely v Moylan - Expenses investigation by Seanad Eireann of Senator Ivor Callely. Touches
on three issues:
o Right to Callely’s good name
o Fair Procedures present for Callely? (e.g. Seanad both accused Callely and purported to be
his Judge)
o Power of Courts to review Seanad: Non-justiciable, given that Callely is member of the
Oireachtas? Apparently not. Section 8, Ethics Act 1995.
o
Internal workings/investigations and non-members of the Oireachtas
 Maguire v Ardagh (The “Abbeylara” case and the good name of Gardai)
 Curtin v Dail Eireann
 Callely v Moylan?
o
Include/consider here the Right to a Good Name and Fair Procedures
 Maguire v Ardagh (The “Abbeylara” case and the good name of Gardai)
 Curtin v Dail Eireann
 Callely v Moylan?
Audi Alterem Partem and Nemo Iudex in sua causa - Twin elements of Fair Procedures
o Hear the Other Side and Have an Independent Judge
Context Sensitive because it is a Horizontal Right (not simply against the State – also works in private
contexts – especially Employment Contexts) –
o Why Horizontal? Gallagher v Revenue Commissioners –
 Quasi-Judicial nature of proceedings
 What is at stake (Job, if not livelihood)
 No-one should set Constitution at nought
Hear the Other Side:
o Advance notice of charges
o Legal Representation
o Right to be heard and to cross-examine
o Right to face accuser
o Rights observed even if without merit
o Right of appeal
Independent Judge
o Actual Bias
o Objective Bias
 Dublin Wellwoman Centre
 Bula v Tara Mines (6) and need for “Nexus”
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
10
info@citycolleges.ie
Right to Property and Right to Livelihood
Considered together as problem questions often concern both
Livelihood
o Unenumerated
o Negative right – not to be stopped from working
o Degree of deference to State’s limit on the right
 AG v Paperlink
 Cafolla v AG
o Legitimate legislative reason for limit
 Landers v AG
 Hand v Dublin Corporation
o Proportionality test/Origin of:
 Cox v Ireland – 7 years ban disproportionate
Property
o Twin references expressly in Constitution: Article 40.3 and Article 43
o Actually twin Limits on right - “Social Justice”/”Common Good” and “Just Attack”
 Blake v AG
 O’Callaghan
 Dreher
o Deference towards Property-based Legislation?:
 AG v Southern Industrial Trust
 An Blaoscad Mor Teoranta - Simply Presumption of Constitutionality
 Clinton v Quirke – Is there a less restrictive way? Heaney v Ireland Proportionality
o Compensation - not an absolute Constitutional entitlement, but almost…
 Central Dublin Development Association, Dreher v AG
o At Market Value - not an absolute Constitutional entitlement, but almost…
 O’Callaghan v CPW, ESB v Gormley
o Right to Fair Procedures when Property rights are being determined
 Dellway v NAMA
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
11
info@citycolleges.ie
Right to Equality and the “Human Personality Doctrine”
•
Heavily Qualified Article
o “As Human Persons”
o “Physical or moral capacity”
o “Social Function”
•
No Horizontal Effect
o Re: A26 and employment equality Bill 1996
o Equality Authority v Portmarnock Golf Club
•
“As Human Persons” – Human Personality Doctrine
o Quinn Supermarkets
o Context vs Basis for Discrimination. Basis was religion (covered by Human Personality
doctrine) but Context was trading (not covered)
o Application of “Human Personality” test – analogy to Proportionality Test Application – Read
Acadmic articles – Brian Foley
o Murtagh Properties v Cleary - Does not apply to Trading activities
o O’Beolain v Fahy - Failure of the State to provide Irish Translations of the Rules of Court to
allow one conduct one’s case through Irish. Could have been deemed a non-Human Persons
“context” but was not.
o Brennan v AG - Property tax on land values. not referable to any “human person” attributes.
the differences were in the parcels of land themselves, not the persons who owned the land
•
Presumptively Invalid/Suspect Classification
o Re A26 and the EEB 1996
o Supreme Court considered whether presumptive Discrimination could be applied and
proscribed by Article 40.1
o Can be applied, but was not in the context of Age
o An Blascoad Mor Teoranta v Commissioner for Public Works
o Discrimination based on Pedigree (who parents were) Unconstitutional, possibly
presumptively invalid.
Legitimate reasons for Legislative Discrimination
o Sex Discrimination
o Mitchell v Ireland, De Burca v AG No legitimate legislative reason
o Re Phillip Clarke – Differences of Mental Capacity - not physical, moral or social function
Standard applied by Courts for testing legislative discrimination/classifications
o Be for a legitimate legislative purpose
o The classification must be relevant to that purpose
o Each class must be treated fairly.
o Dillane v AG, TO’G v AG, State (Nicolau) v An Bord Uchtala
•
•
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
12
info@citycolleges.ie
Right to Freedom of Speech and the ECHR
Good Name under Article 40.3
o Oireachtas Subcommittee versus Tribunal/Fair Procedures
Freedom of Expression
Wording and Inherent Qualification
Convictions and Opinions Only? Or Facts also? Communication
AG v Paperlink, but Murphy v IRTC
o Worthy Material Only? No: Mahon v Post Publications
Restrictions on FOE
o Public Order and Morality – and competing right of a Good Name
o NY Times v Sullivan (USA) contrast Hynes-O’Sullivan v Driscoll
o Balancing of Rights between two express Constitutional rights - Hunter v Duckworth,
DPP v Shaw – No fixed hierarchy
o Harmonious Reading/“Balancing of Rights”/ Hunter v Duckworth
o Proportionality Doctrine Religious And Political FOE
 Murphy v IRTC – High Court application of Heaney Proportionality
 Murphy v IRTC – Supreme Court application of Tuohy Proportionality
 Colgan v IRTC - Tuohy proportionality applied.
ECHR Jurisprudence and Article 10 ECHR
o Restrictions must be prescribed by LAW and
o Must serve a Legitimate purpose
o Must be necessary in a Democratic society
 Wide margin of appreciation for Religious matters
 Otto Preminger v Austria, Murphy v IRTC
o Is material already in the public domain?
 Fressoz, Weber, Spycatcher, Open Door Counselling
o Meretricious speech equally protected:
 Jersild v Denmark (CF Mahon v Post Publications)
o Court will “look behind” assertion of public nature Bladet Tromso, Lingens
Defamation and Directions to the Jury on Awards
o De Rossa/Tolstoy/De Rossa/O’Brien/Independent
Contempt of Court and Freedom of Speech – Kelly v O’Neill
Prior Restraint
o Legal Power and High Threshold
 Foley v Sunday Independent [2005] + Cogley & Aherne v RTE
 Mahon v Post Publications
Privacy
o Origins - McGee, Norris, Kennedy v Ireland
o Surveillance
 DPP v Kenny, Kane v Governor of Mountjoy
 Atherton v DPP, Copland v UK, TV3 v Fahy
 Klass v Germany, Khan v UK
 Cogley & Ahearne
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
13
info@citycolleges.ie
Right to Family and Right to Education
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Family Based on Marriage/Power of Oireachtas to Regulate
• Is Article 41.3 only a prohibition against Inducements not to Marry
• Murphy v AG, Muckley v Ireland,
• Mhicmhathuna v Ireland, Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare – “Penalisation” of Marriage?
Autonomy in Decision-Making against the State
• Re Article 26 and the Matrimonial Homes Bill
• Legislation that allowed a statutory division of the family home was unconstitutional, partly
because it interfered with decisions already made by the family
• NW Health Board v W
• “Exceptional Circumstances”/”Exceptional Cases” required before intervention in Autonomy
of the Married family.
• An immediate threat to the life of the child
• A degree of parental neglect constituting abandonment of child and their rights
therein
• An immediate and fundamental threat to the capacity of the child to continue to
function as a human person, physically, morally or socially, deriving from an
exceptional dereliction of parental duty
• Re a Ward of Court (Baby Janice) - Court could intervene.
• EHB v MK and McK v Information Commissioner – State should only reluctantly intervene in
decisions of even the unmarried parents.
Referendum on the Rights of the Child
• New definition of “parents” subject to provisions of Article 42.5 – expressly encompasses
marital family – less protection for that marital family
• Implied assertion of existence of non-marital family? Repercussions for Zappone and
definition of marriage? Repercussions for non-marital Natural Father’s rights?
Limits on the Right/“Unjust Attack”
• Murphy v AG, Muckley v Ireland, and Mhicmhathuna v Ireland
Custody and Adoption/Failure of Parental Duty & Threshold
• DG v ABU
• Nature of her rights re: child must be made known to the Mother
• Two-Stage nature of the Adoption process must be explained
• Effect of Adoption order must be explained – effect on her RIGHTS
• Effect of Legislative Provisions which allow a Court to Overturn Her Final Refusal TO
give Consent.
• N & Another v HSE - “Change of mind” case – unmarried couple surrender child for adoption,
then get married and seek child back.
• Fajujonu v Minister for Justice and Osyande v Minister for Justice
Non-Marital Fathers Rights
• JK v VW (Dissenting Judgement – parameters of “Good” Father?)
• WO’R v EH (Again, Dissenting Judgement and parameters of “Good” Father)
• The “G” Case – GT v KAO - High Court, bound by Supreme Court j
• District Court Guardianship, Brussels,Hague
• Kroon v Netherlands – Article 8 ECHR Rights
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
14
info@citycolleges.ie
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
15
info@citycolleges.ie
Dublin City Centre (Dublin 2), Templeogue (Dublin 6W) and Online
Website: www.citycolleges.ie
Phone: 01-4160034
Email: info@citycolleges.ie
Head of Law: Philip Burke, LLB, BL (087 7679 576)
Faculty Manager: Pamela Morton (086 0290 412)
The next course commences Tuesday, June 4th 2013
Lectures are delivered by some of the most experienced and inspiring law lecturers in the country
and are also streamed live as well as recorded and made available for review online.
Ireland’s best, and most experienced FE1 law lecturers, including Brendan Foley, Philip
Burke, Mark Cockerill , Trish Cronin, Ciarán Lawlor and Ronan Lupton
The most up-to-date and comprehensive FE1 manuals
Live lectures which are also streamed live on Moodle, and are recorded for review
Exam question and solution bank
Dedicated exam review and preview classes
End of course tutorials, as well as memory and study technique classes
City centre location on South Great George’s Street, convenient for bus, LUAS, DART, etc.
Southside Dublin location in Templeogue
Study rooms and library in both locations
Limited class size
Course Fees: €325 per subject, or €2,100 for eight subjects
Apply online at www.citycolleges.ie or call 01-4160034
© Brendan Foley, City Colleges
www.citycolleges.ie
1850252740
16
info@citycolleges.ie